Mr.Ashkeen Ahmed vs Public Work Development on 22 August, 2009

0
104
Central Information Commission
Mr.Ashkeen Ahmed vs Public Work Development on 22 August, 2009
                  CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION22
                       Club Building (Near Post Office),
                     Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
                            Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                             Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001306/4013Penalty
                                                           Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001306

SHOWCAUSE HEARING:

Appellant                            :       Mr.Ashkeen Ahmed
                                             SAATHI Centre
                                             Inside of Kalyanpuri Police Station
                                             Delhi-110091.

Respondent                           :       Mr. M.C.Yadav
                                             PIO
                                             Public Work Development
                                             M-211, 2nd Nizamuddin Bridge,
                                             Eastern Approach Road, Delhi-91.

BACKGROUND

:

The Appellant had asked information regarding a Road which is in front of Manglam
Hospital, West Vinod Nagar Delhi-110092. The PIO (Zone M-2) had transferred the Appellant’s
application to Superintendent Engineer, PWD, M-21, Nizamuddin Bridge, East End, Delhi-91 on
24.02.2009.

Since no response has been received from the concerned PIO within prescribed time limit of
30/35 days. The Appellant filed First Appeal. No order was passed by the FAA.

Facts arose during the hearing on 07/07/2009:

Both were present. The Respondent states that after transfer of the application it was received on
18.02.2009. The PIO sought the assistance of Mr. Tejinder Singh, Suptd. Engineer, on
24.02.2009 under Section 5(4). Mr. Tejinder Singh sought the assistance from Executive
Engineer M211. Mr. M.C. Yadav on 27/02/2009. Mr. M.C. Yadav has given a reply to the
appellant on 01.05.2009 which doesn’t provide the information sought by the Appellant. The
Public Authority seems to be taking the RTI very casually. No information sought by the
Appellant has been supplied to him until the hearing.

Commission’s Order 07/07/2009:

The appeal was allowed. The PIO was directed supply the information to the Appellant before
30th July 2009.

Facts leading to Showcause:

The issue before the Commission was of not supplying the complete, required information by the
PIO within 30 days as required by the law. The PIO Mr. M.C.Yadav was found guilty of not
furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not
replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. Hence he was directed to present
himself on 22 August 2009 at 5.00pm.

Relevant Facts emerging during Showcause Hearing on 22 August 2009:
The following were present:

Appellant : Absent
Respondent : Mr. M.C. Yadav, PIO
The Respondent has given written submission in which he states that the delay occurred because
of being busy in Commonwealth Game’s work. He states he received the RTI application on
28/02/2009 and provided the reply to the Appellant on 01/05/2009. Even on 1/5/2009, he did not
provide the complete information claiming he was not sure of the exact information being
sought! He finally gave the information only on 30/7/2009 after the Commission’s order on 7
July 2009. The reply was due to be given on 13/3/2009. He was asked the reason for the delay
and states that he apologizes for the delay and will not repeat it. He is not offering any
reasonable causes for the delay. He should have supplied the information latest by 13/03/2009
since the RTI application was received on 13/02/2009. Thus he has delayed giving the
information by over 100 days. There is no reasonable cause offered by him for this delay. The
penalty as per Section 20(1) is Rs.250/- per day of delay subject to a maximum of Rs.25000/-.
Hence he is penalized Rs.25000/- as per Section 20(1) since the delay is over 100 days, which is
the maximum penalty under the Act.

Decision:

As per the provisions of Section 20 (1), the Commission finds this a fit case for levying
penalty on PIO Mr. M.C.Yadav. He is penalized Rs. 25000 which is the maximum penalty since
the delay is over 100 days.

The Chief Secretary of GNCT of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of Rs.25000/-
from the salary of Mr. M.C.Yadav, and remit the same by a demand draft or a Banker’s Cheque
in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to
Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of the Central Information
Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi – 110066. The amount may be
deducted at the rate of Rs.5000/ per month every month from the salary of Mr. M.C.Yadav and
remitted by the 10th of every month starting from October 2009. The total amount of Rs.25000 /-
will be remitted by February, 2010.




                                                                              Shailesh Gandhi
                                                                    Information Commissioner
                                                                               22 August 2009

1-     The Chief Secretary
       GNCT of Delhi
       New Delhi

2-     Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
       Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
       Central Information Commission,
       2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
       New Delhi - 110066
 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *